Who Were the Highest Paid NBA Players in 2020? Salary Breakdown Revealed

As I was looking through the latest NBA salary data for 2020, I couldn't help but marvel at the staggering figures that define today's basketball economy. Having followed the league for over fifteen years, I've witnessed salaries transform from impressive to astronomical, and 2020 represented another fascinating chapter in this evolution. The financial landscape of professional basketball has always intrigued me, not just for the numbers themselves, but for what they reveal about player value, team priorities, and the sport's commercial explosion.

When the 2020 salary figures came out, Stephen Curry's name sat comfortably at the top with a whopping $43 million from the Golden State Warriors. Now that's what I call a paycheck! Having watched Curry's journey from Davidson to becoming the face of modern basketball, I can't think of anyone more deserving. His transformation of how basketball is played justifies every dollar, though I must admit even I was surprised by the sheer magnitude of his earnings. Close behind was Chris Paul, who collected $41 million from the Oklahoma City Thunder that season. Paul's situation particularly fascinated me because here was a veteran in his mid-thirties, supposedly past his prime according to some analysts, yet commanding one of the league's largest contracts. It reminded me that in basketball, leadership and basketball IQ can be just as valuable as raw athleticism.

Russell Westbrook's $41 million deal with the Houston Rockets placed him right there with the elite earners, and having watched Westbrook play since his UCLA days, I've always believed his explosive style deserves premium compensation. The man plays with an intensity I've rarely seen in professional sports. What struck me about these top contracts was how they reflected different types of value—Curry's revolutionary shooting, Paul's cerebral gameplay, Westbrook's relentless energy. This diversity in earning power reminds me of something I once heard about volleyball, where "different hitters, everybody hits really different, everybody has a different skillset." The same applies to NBA salaries—each top earner brings something unique to the court, and teams pay for that distinctive value.

LeBron James came in at $39 million with the Los Angeles Lakers, which honestly feels like a bargain when you consider his impact on and off the court. I've argued for years that James is underpaid relative to his value, not just as a player but as a franchise transformer. Kevin Durant, despite missing the season due to injury, still earned $37 million from the Brooklyn Nets—a testament to how teams value potential and star power beyond immediate court contributions. This aspect of NBA contracts has always fascinated me: the willingness to invest in future returns rather than just present production.

The middle tier of earners presented what I find most interesting about NBA economics—players like Blake Griffin ($34 million) and John Wall ($38 million) were among the highest paid despite significant injury concerns. Here's where my perspective might be controversial: I believe these contracts represent some of the worst allocations of resources in modern basketball. Having watched both players struggle with injuries for years, I'm convinced that guaranteed maximum contracts for injury-prone stars create problematic incentives for teams. The Washington Wizards paying Wall $38 million while he recovered from an Achilles tear exemplifies what I consider front office malpractice, no matter how talented the player.

What many casual fans don't realize is that NBA salaries aren't just about current performance—they're about timing, market dynamics, and collective bargaining agreements. James Harden's $38 million with the Rockets reflected his scoring dominance, but also Houston's specific cap situation and his timing in reaching free agency. I've always found it telling that similar talents can earn vastly different amounts based on these structural factors rather than pure basketball merit.

The international aspect of NBA earnings also deserves attention. Players like Giannis Antetokounmpo ($27 million) represented what I consider the league's best values—young superstars on contracts signed before their primes. Having watched Giannis develop from a raw prospect into a two-time MVP, his contract was arguably the most team-friendly among elite players. This contrast between veteran max contracts and emerging stars on cheaper deals creates fascinating payroll dynamics that directly impact championship contention.

As I reflect on the 2020 salary landscape, what stands out to me is how it captures basketball's economic transformation. The league's revenue growth has created financial opportunities unimaginable when I first started following the sport. Yet I can't help but wonder about sustainability—can teams continue escalating payrolls while maintaining competitive balance? My personal view is that we're approaching a tipping point where the disparity between superstar earnings and role player compensation may create roster construction challenges.

The adaptation required from teams managing these salaries reminds me of that volleyball insight about different hitters requiring different approaches. NBA general managers must constantly adapt to diverse contract situations, much like setters adjusting to different hitters' unique skillsets. This financial flexibility has become as crucial as on-court strategy in today's NBA.

Looking back at the 2020 numbers, I'm struck by how they represent both the past and future of basketball economics. The veterans at the top earned based on legacy and proven value, while the emerging stars signaled where the league was heading. As a longtime observer, I believe we'll look back at 2020 as a transitional year—the last before new media deals potentially reshaped the financial landscape again. The salaries revealed not just who was earning what, but what the league valued most in that particular moment, and honestly, I find that story more compelling than the numbers themselves.